Poll: Morality of To Catch a Predator.

[theSovietConnection]

At any point before the meeting, that suspect has the free will to just not show up.

Actually no. In Texas (which is where a lot of the episodes are set) you have committed the crime once you start talking online. They don't have to show up. That's how they make that man kill himself. They try to arrest him at his house after he decided not to go through with the meeting. They cornered him and he said "I don't want to harm any of you" and shot himself in the head.

Hmm, that Texas one is new on me.

By showing up, it shows that they were willing to commit this crime.

No, it doesn't. There is a lot of evidence to suggest they were going to, but for all we know they could be showing up to simply talk to the girl. Yeah it sounds like a really bad excuse (and it probably is 99% of the time) but it could be true.

But you take it into context with the conversations had online. Suppose the suspect invites the alleged child to meet somewhere for sex, then shows up expecting the child to be there. I don't think you'd have too hard of a time convincing even Canadian judges that a criminal offense was going to take place. Mind you, in Canada we'd send them to what may as well be an all-inclusive resort.

 

[Kortney]

But you take it into context with the conversations had online. Suppose the suspect invites the alleged child to meet somewhere for sex, then shows up expecting the child to be there.

Sure the context makes it seem fishy, but it still could be true. We all have said things online we don't mean and have done stupid stuff. A good barrister could very well get you off with a slap on the wrist - especially if you arrived at the house with no condoms or anything that suggests malicious intent was about to take place (like many have).

I've seen quite a lot of the episodes and most cases I agree with you. But there are a few where that "You were being naughty online so you were going to rape her!" doesn't apply and is extremely unfair.

 

[Kaymish]

not only is it morally repugnant but its probably also highly illegal since it looks to me like entrapment
but then again the united states in not known for being the epitome of justice

 

[theSovietConnection]

But you take it into context with the conversations had online. Suppose the suspect invites the alleged child to meet somewhere for sex, then shows up expecting the child to be there.

Sure the context makes it seem fishy, but it still could be true. We all have said things online we don't mean and have done stupid stuff. A good barrister could very well get you off with a slap on the wrist - especially if you arrived at the house with no condoms or anything that suggests malicious intent was about to take place (like many have).

I've seen quite a lot of the episodes and most cases I agree with you. But there are a few where that "You were being naughty online so you were going to rape her!" doesn't apply and is extremely unfair.

The whole thing is really a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other. Times like this I wish we had a computer program or something that could unbiasedly view all presented evidence from both sides and make a truely unbiased judgement.

EDIT:

not only is it morally repugnant but its probably also highly illegal since it looks to me like entrapment
but then again the united states in not known for being the epitome of justice

It's all dependent on who makes the initial invitation. If the police/volunteer make the invitation, then yes, it is entrapment. If the suspect makes the invitation, then they are no longer protected by entrapment laws.

 

[Kortney]

But you take it into context with the conversations had online. Suppose the suspect invites the alleged child to meet somewhere for sex, then shows up expecting the child to be there.

Sure the context makes it seem fishy, but it still could be true. We all have said things online we don't mean and have done stupid stuff. A good barrister could very well get you off with a slap on the wrist - especially if you arrived at the house with no condoms or anything that suggests malicious intent was about to take place (like many have).

I've seen quite a lot of the episodes and most cases I agree with you. But there are a few where that "You were being naughty online so you were going to rape her!" doesn't apply and is extremely unfair.

The whole thing is really a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other. Times like this I wish we had a computer program or something that could unbiasedly view all presented evidence from both sides and make a truely unbiased judgement.

I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is, is that this show isn't unbiased. It's incredibly biased. They edit footage left right and centre, only show snippets of chat logs and do their best to make sure the audience thinks all these men are psycho child rapers. In fact, every time something is shown that makes the audience feel sympathy of the "paedophile" the camera will cut to Chris Hansen one on one explaining why you shouldn't feel sympathy. That's why I don't like what they do.

 

[Blunderman]

Actually no it doesn't. It means it does something that breaches my moral code. I find it wrong on a moral and ethical level, not on a practical.

All right. I'm curious, why does it breach your moral code? Actually, I think you've said it already:

Just because the people on the show are sick, confused, retarded or just plain not normal doesn't mean you get to trick them and put it on the television.

In other words, regardless of why these people do it, it's still morally wrong to trick them for the purposes of entertainment while making it known to the entire country what they've done. Do you oppose the trickery part, the televising part, or both?

Tell me, what's your stance on Megan's Law? In practice, it means that if you commit a sexual crime (of certain kinds) then that fact will be available to anyone who wants to know. It cancels the person's privacy on that point. Society values the safety of children higher than the privacy of sexual predators. Does this go against your moral code?

Also, What's your take on the below statement from my previous post?

"Once any person is willingly planning to commit a crime then they forfeit many of their legal rights."

 

[Johnwesleyharding]

Well if I may

Although it does seem morally questionable, but if the guy gives in then well I find it kinda hard to feel sorry for them. Idk for me, it's like a bait car.

Oh well I'm not on to start an open discussion.

Stick that image on OP on a 4chan thread. Pick a board that works.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I wholeheartedly agree. The problem is, is that this show isn't unbiased. It's incredibly biased. They edit footage left right and centre, only show snippets of chat logs and do their best to make sure the audience thinks all these men are psycho child rapers. In fact, every time something is shown that makes the audience feel sympathy of the "paedophile" the camera will cut to Chris Hansen one on one explaining why you shouldn't feel sympathy. That's why I don't like what they do.

That's modern media for you anymore, though. It's nigh on impossible to get the real truth anymore, so I usually just look at the two extremes on the story and figure the truth is a combination of the two.

 

[Phoenixlight]

I can see it both ways. Some of those guys might be perverted bastards, others might have good intentions.

Good intentions? having sex with a child isn't exactly a good intention. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing this but they'd do 95% better if they tried the same thing in Japan. The guys there are a lot more perverted and more likely to be interested in things like that, you can tell due to the amount of perverted magazines sold featuring kids.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Gehhhhhh yeah ... It's hard to say it's right or not. I mean do these people have a chance of being that which they are vilified for? Possibly.

But at the same time, would it then be okay to 'bait' a murderer. liek lets say if there was a person who was 'susp[ected' of murdering someone, but the charge was deemed 'without being beyond reasonable doubt as to whether the implicated party actually committed the act or not'.

Would it then be okay to bait them by making their life a living hell, to the point where one day they just snap and decide to confront the individual making their life a burden with murderous intent?

Whilst this might seem extreme, but is it right?

The point is that if we apply this to other types of crime such as suspected theft or murder, could it noit be said that all humans have the ability to commit either under suitable duress?

Whilst not all humans are capable of being sex offenders, all humans are capable of being criminal. To bait an individual into committing a criminal offence is nothing short of being an associate to that very crime.

That being said ... if it is the police that are involved ... then I guess you could say that it's no different from being an undercover cop. Of which is questionable on iot's own merits as well. It's a tough discussion ....

At the very least it shouldn't be televised.

 

[tofulove]

my thoughts, if there a teenager, there not technically a child so there not technically pedophiles, but still way to young for any men there age to pursue, way i see it, under 14 and your not with in 4-5 years of that age, death penalty, 16 or over legal, 15 im in the Grey on that depends on the person.

it mainly depends on the maturity of the people, highly mature 14 year old with a 20 year old, age gap is a little large and far into the Grey in my moral compass, but i don't think criminal charges should be press if its consensual, but if the 20 year old was lets say 32 instead, bring out the firing squad.

 

[NotSoNimble]

When the guy lies about his age, shows up with alcohol and condoms, yeah, he should be arrested.

 

[satsujinka]

I feel that it's entrapment. I also feel like it's a wasted effort. The fact is online molesters are a minority. The vast majority of molestation occurs by family members or friends of the family (ie. people that the child is told is an authority by their family.) So poking at people online to try to "catch them in the act" seems to me to be a horrible waste of time.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of whether or not such solicited sex is even harmful to the minor in question. After all, the minor did agree to it, but this touches on whether or not you think minors should be allowed to make their own decisions. I think minors should be allowed to make decisions, even bad ones. In my mind, family is there for exactly the purpose of supporting a minor when they make a bad decision.

In the end what I need is evidence. Evidence that time wouldn't be better spent on trying to stop the molestation that is perpetrated by family members and other trusted individuals (which I am very much aware of the damage such causes) as opposed to luring people into revealing that they like children.

 

[zombiesinc]

Enticing the users, and pressuring them into agreeing to do something illegal could be morally questionable, but even so, these users agree. They ignore the "hey im a 12/f/florida" and continue on with sex talk. They eventually agree and meet at a designated location.

I think for me, that's enough to feel like they were right to get charged.

 

[Jeronus]

I see it as doing the right thing. I don't want some old dirty perv tricking my young niece into sex. I manage to steer clear of sexually naive teenagers looking for sex. These guys made a decision when they went online and started talking to kids about sex. As for the D.A., his end was the product of his own actions. He made a choice when he opened his browser and it led to his final choice.

 

[Jeronus]

So this show doesn't deal with female sexual predators? Because they are cool and all?

Female predators are usually smarter and will cut off contact before saying anything incriminating. Women don't think with their sexual organs like men do.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

It doesn't matter if they're falling for bait, because they essentially have broken the law. Let's say I give you a gun, and the option to walk away or kill someone. I tell you there will be no consequences to you if you pull the trigger, but that the gun is loaded, and obviously deadly to the person. I do not tell you that I am an actor working for the police. The gun is actually empty. If you pull the trigger, you are a murderer because you committed an act with intent to kill someone by your own free will, even if you were baited to attempt to kill someone, but never ended up killing them.

This has probably been said already, but I'm pretty sure that would count that as attempted murder. I get your point though.


OT...hmmm. It's questionable but then I suppose as long as the show doesn't suggest the meeting etc and it really is all the guys doing apart from the fact that he's taling to a cop instead of an underage child. Televising it though is rather off I feel.